Woodland Caribou in Canada: Science, Values, and Politics

Caribou need a lot of untouched space. This poses a dilemma for the logging industry.

“Act now to save Quebec’s woodland caribou!” has become a recurrent theme in the media, including a Globe and Mail editorial last Monday (Nov. 25) and an article in the New York Times today (Dec. 3). The stakes are high. Three of Quebec’s caribou herds are considered to be at risk of local extinction. Since last spring, the federal government has been threatening to enact an emergency order to protect the province’s three most at-risk caribou herds. If approved by the Governor in Council, such an order would ban all industrial activities that present a threat to herd survival.

Protecting caribou habitat would be the best way to preserve the species. However, an analysis by the Quebec government suggests that, if the province were to implement the level of habitat protection promoted by the federal government, 2,000 jobs would be lost, 1,000 of them in forestry. Similarly, the federal government’s own analysis projected 1,400 job losses in 28 communities across the province, along with a $670-895 million economic impact over 10 years.

As natural resource management is mostly under provincial jurisdiction in Canada, the federal government’s emergency order reflects a serious diplomatic breakdown between the federal and Quebec governments. And Quebec is not the only jurisdiction grappling with how to manage woodland caribou.

According to a presentation by timber supply expert Rob Scheutz at the recent Global Softwood Summit conference, woodland caribou inhabit roughly 43% of Canada’s forests. While much of this forest is too sparse or remote to be logged, roughly half of the woodland caribou’s territory – or 20% of the total forest – is located within 150 km of a sawmill. Reserving this area solely for caribou would starve a lot of mills.

In short, while protecting Canada’s woodland caribou is important, the federal government’s mandated conservation measures have been divisive. The following is a brief introduction to caribou conservation issues for non-specialists, with an emphasis on the sources of the federal / provincial conflicts.

Billboard erected in the municipality of Sacré-Coeur in eastern Quebec. The sign reads, “Village for sale / #caribou decree / Village threatened with disappearance.” Courtesy Radio-Canada.

Caribou Ecology: Shy Herds Need Lots of Undisturbed Forest

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), also known as reindeer in Europe and Asia, are one of the north’s most iconic species. Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), as their name suggests, are a subspecies of caribou that live in forested landscapes.

Like their cousins in the far north, woodland caribou are uniquely suited to their snowy, northern environments. Large, concave hooves enable them to travel readily across deep snow in winter and soft ground in summer. Caribou diets are highly variable, but in winter consist heavily of lichens.

Woodland caribou are very shy, preferring the cover of mature forests over natural and man-made clearings. Clearings attract other ungulate species, such as deer and moose, which in turn attract predators such as wolves. Man-made clearings (such as clearcuts, roads, mines and seismic lines) are particularly frightening to caribou: they not only avoid the clearings themselves, but also avoid the areas around them.

Woodland caribou’s preference for large, untouched forest areas puts their needs squarely at odds with those of the forest industry. And not just any untouched forest will do: caribou’s lichen-heavy diets mean they need large areas of mature forests, as that is where lichens are the most abundant.

Many environmental organizations consider caribou to be both an indicator species (that is, a species whose population health serves as an indicator of overall ecosystem health) and an umbrella species (a species that, when its habitat needs are met, the needs of many others species within the ecosystem are also met). Additionally, many Indigenous peoples (such as the Pessamit Innu featured in the New York Times article) rely on caribou for sustenance.

Woodland caribou populations’ aversion to contact with humans means it is very difficult to simultaneously meet both their needs and those of industrial development.

Federal and Provincial Governments at Loggerheads

Canada’s federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Boreal Population (2012) calls for a minimum of 65% of the habitat in each caribou herd’s range to be maintained in an undisturbed state, based on a model that showed that a 65% preservation level (or 35% disturbance level) corresponds with a 60% probability of herd survival. Under the strategy guidelines, “disturbance” includes both human activity (with a 500m buffer) and areas that had burned within the last 40 years (with no buffer). If more than 35% of the territory had already been disturbed (as is the case in many parts of northern Canada), then no additional industrial expansion may occur, and disturbed habitat must be restored.

The Recovery Strategy also requires all provinces and territories to implement recovery strategies detailing the actions they will take to meet the 65% target. Yet, despite the federal government’s 2017 deadline for strategy implementation, several provinces have pushed back. Fully implementing the federal habitat protection guidelines would seriously hurt many regional economies.

The conflict between the federal environment ministry and provincial governments may stem at least partly from the difference in their mandates. As pointed out by the Scientific Assessment of Federal and Provincial Frameworks for the Conservation of Boreal Caribou in Ontario (2024), while the federal regulations focus primarily on the biological aspects of caribou management, the provincial decision-making process must also consider the social and economic consequences of the management actions.

Caribou Conservation: Science vs. Value Judgements

Not only have the provinces challenged federal policies, they have also challenged the science and philosophy on which they are based. For example, the Scientific Assessment of Federal and Provincial Frameworks commented on the model used in determining the federal government’s 65% protection target. The model was based on Landsat data from 2008; since then, higher-resolution special data have come available, as have new caribou demographic data. Refining the model with the latest data could change its results.

Another debated aspect of the federal Recovery Strategy is its insistence that that each and every caribou herd be preserved, with the most endangered herds given priority. The justification for this approach is that preserving each herd would preserve the genetic variation within the species, enabling its long-term viability. However, many resource managers have quietly questioned whether it makes sense to put hundreds of people out of work for herds that may be unviable anyway.

Not all scientists agree with “each herd must be preserved” approach. For example, in the early 2010s, researchers at the University of Alberta proposed a “triage” approach to caribou management. As maintaining all existing herds would mean restoring near-pristine conditions across northern Alberta, and doing so would be too costly to be politically viable, the researchers instead suggested a compromise. By protecting the areas with the least amount of industrial activity, Alberta could fully protect 60% of their current caribou range and also maintain access to over 98% of the value of resources on public lands. The main problem with this approach was its optics: few politicians are willing to publicly announce that caribou herds will be intentionally abandoned.

Conclusion: More Compromise Is Needed

Caribou conservation is a fraught topic in Canada. If we put off making difficult decisions about habitat protection, many of Canada’s 51 distinct woodland caribou herds may go extinct. Yet, the federal government’s “do it our way or else!” approach clearly isn’t working. To move the process forward, some degree of compromise will be necessary, even if this compromise means recognizing that some caribou herds – and some sawmills – will indeed go extinct.

Although it is clear that caribou need undisturbed space, and plenty of it, focusing solely on habitat protection as a caribou conservation strategy may not be the best approach for either humans or caribou. As pointed out by the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), some herds in relatively disturbed areas (such as parts of northern Alberta and Ontario) are doing well, whereas others from relatively undisturbed areas (such as parts of Quebec and Labrador) are in decline. This suggests that a more nuanced approach to caribou conservation, taking into account local knowledge, may be a better approach.

Does Canada need to make more room for woodland caribou? Yes. But to reach lasting solutions, we will need to take the needs of humans into account too.